BrowserBugs

Welcome to WDF

I'd say 301 would be fine. As for big G if they know of or accidentally crawl the url then whatever they knew is now gone and the replacement is on Google Docs. If it's a fresh url then they didn't know about it anyway.

Hey up. Looking at the charts they remind me of the ones from Google Developers, see https://developers.google.com/chart.

Hi Red, This should fix the non-www to www; RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www\.address\.co\.uk [NC] RewriteRule (.*) http://www.address.co.uk%{REQUEST_URI} [L,R=301] ... this says if the http_host is not www.address.co.uk then to forward to the www version with a permanent 301.

Ok, just to update it happens in any existing folder when calling a .php file that doesn't exist. To add then; domain.com/j/fish.php - Custom 404 shows domain.com/images/fish.php - File Not Found as /images/ is a real folder. Cheers.

Hi Gang, So, I've a bit of a pickle and I'm not 100% sure as to why. I'm using a custom 404 served via htaccess. Here's the simple htaccess setup. Options +FollowSymlinks RewriteEngine On RewriteBase / ErrorDocument 404 /404.php The problem is when requesting a non-existent .php file in the public root I get 'File not found.' and not the custom 404. Here's some examples; domain.com/fish - Custom 404 shows domain.com/fish/ - Custom 404 shows domain.com/fish.html - Custom 404 shows domain.com/fish.jpg - Custom 404 shows domain.com/fish.php - I get File Not Found. domain.com/j/fish.php - Custom 404 shows Any ideas as to why a non-existent /fish.php would not find the 404 file, yet does at a lower level like /a/fish.php? Cheers.

The speed comes from 2 places. First is file size and compression, second is where the images come from. For the initial save then something like Tiny PNG API would work, see https://tinypng.com/developers. This will make the initial files smaller, the benefit you're storing them in that format and not relying with on the fly compression which takes valuable time. Alternatively some hosts provide compression, I know 20i does but I've not had time to play with it. As for the second, where it comes from, there's some benefit in 3rd party image hosting for large multi-national sites, however if UK hosted with 98% UK traffic then the CDN can actually cause a slowdown as it's another step in the serving process.

I don't use WordPress, I'm a little old school and still build projects by hand, less is often more. WYSIWYG sort of died as fisicx says, there's too many screens to deal with. At the same time I'm not a fan of massive frameworks, overkill for many projects as they're designed to consider everything when you might only use 10% at best. Where to jump back in will depend what level your html / css / js are, for example did you stop pre media queries? The process of code > upload > test still works, and yes many will say 'But I work at X big brand and only proper developers use Y...' but that's their bag, plain html / css works, simple and effective.

It sounds like the frame is causing issues. What's I think is happening is the iframe has separated the calendar from the page, so essentially it's has removed the credit for all the dates of events which were displayed in the page leaving only the surrounding content. To fix this you need that content back. A few ways of doing this depending on how the third party calendar is set up. They might have an API so you can call the dates and insert them into your page, another option might be to essentially scrape the third party for the data, although they might not be too happy about this.

Sorry for the delay. Thing is with CLS is it's in the name, 'cumulative', as the dictionary says "increasing or increased in quantity, degree, or force by successive additions.". I'm not being sarcastic, what you're seeing is the 'successive additions' which creates that score, I've never found one thing that is the single culprit. I've taken a look at the main site and the biggest thing that stands out is you have lots of images without specified dimensions, however I'm guessing that the logo is pretty important above the fold. Without any dimensions specified the browser will need to download the image file, get the dimensions, and then the 'space' can be used as specified by the css. This delay is a contribution to shift, it has a lot of steps until it knows the space. By defining the width and height of the image, e.g. the logo 'native' size is 319px X 106px, and that it's an <img>, the browser then 'knows' what it's dealing with, so it can make space even before the image is downloaded. However by defining width and height we're no longer responsive, but we can fix that. <div class="logo"> <img src="/img/logo.jpg?1565698935" alt="logo" width="319" height="106"> <a href="/" class="anchor-box"></a> </div> ... this will break the responsive, until we fix the image, an example; .logo { width: 140px; } .logo img { max-width: 100%; height: auto; } What this does is says the the container is 140px, the image can only be the max width of the container, and the height is whatever it needs to be to match the width of the container. So now even before the logo has actually downloaded the browser now knows that it has a 319px X 106px that needs to be displayed 140px X 47px, so it can reserve space before the file has even finished downloading. Fix all of those first and then see the CLS score. Hope this helps you in the right direction

From an accessibility point of view yes, and to some degree it matters also for the search engines. H1 is the main heading of a given page, and for each section heading after it should be H2. And then, if a section has a sub-section it should use H3, and so on. This gives a document structure for both search engines and screen readers. It's around this point that SEO types will jump in and say "It doesn't really matter, Google can figure it out" and to some degree their right, Google will take a stab at understanding your malformed mark up based on flimsy things like font size, but alas for screen readers it's not as simple. I've yet to find an SEO with a justifiable reason for making the headings all H1, or for example putting the logo in an H1 when it should be in a div. Until they have a valid reason stick to the semantics of headings, don't make Google and screen readers guess. <h1>Main Heading</h1> <p>Some copy</p> <h2>Section 1</h2> <p>Some copy</p> <h2>Section 2</h2> <p>Some copy</p> <h2>Section 3</h2> <p>Some copy</p> <h3>Section 3: Sub-Section 1</h3> <p>Some copy</p> <h3>Section 3: Sub-Section 2</h3> <p>Some copy</p> <h2>Section 4</h2> <p>Some copy</p>

Right on the button, good digital designers who know css, html and js in their raw form are becoming hard to find. If nobody can remember the basics of the languages then things like WordPress would die. You're seeing it more and more in specialist job ads.

Hmmm, see with say Google Analytics, Search Console, My Business etc what I do for clients starting from scratch is make an email forwarder for something like ed@theirdomain.com. This means even if we part company they can still access and reset everything and just take me off the cc. The same for getty/shutterstock for where they got the stock images, or a postcode lookup that uses credits etc. Also handy as they can pay the bills and can never leave you out of pocket.

Can you buy in a company name? Often orgs don't have a 'person' to own anything.

Not quite, what I meant was if something is a one off fee then there is no ongoing cost. If however they need something in particular that in order to use requires an annual subscription then they should foot the cost. I don't actually deal with WordPress so cannot comment on how each plugin is paid for etc. As @fisicx puts it, if they want stock images then they will have to be paid for due to licensing.